From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muchler v. Penwarden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1994
207 A.D.2d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

September 30, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Steuben County, Bradstreet, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the second cause of action. The allegation that defendant failed to inform plaintiff of the risks associated with the use of the prescribed medications Thorazine and Sinemet could support plaintiff's right to recover for medical malpractice based on a lack of informed consent (see, Public Health Law § 2805-d; Marchione v State of New York, 194 A.D.2d 851; Dooley v. Skodnek, 138 A.D.2d 102).


Summaries of

Muchler v. Penwarden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1994
207 A.D.2d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Muchler v. Penwarden

Case Details

Full title:PAUL MUCHLER, Respondent, v. BRENTON PENWARDEN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Sep 30, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 87

Citing Cases

McQueen v. United States

In particular, affording plaintiff's pro se pleadings the most liberal construction possible, as the…

Kuperstein v. Hoffman-Laroche, Inc.

Section 2805(d)(3) states two distinct causation elements of the claim: 1) that a reasonably prudent patient…